0.5 Napster, grokster, and the riaa lawsuits  (Page 4/5)

Since the conclusion of the trial, the Grokster web site has displayed this message:

The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners. There are legal services for downloading music and movies. This service is not one of them. YOUR IP ADDRESS IS ______________ AND HAS BEEN LOGGED.Don't think you can't get caught. You are not anonymous. (External Link) (Grokster 2005)

The RIAA lawsuits

Although the music industry was successful in shutting down Napster, Grokster, and a handful of other services, online sharing of music files continued. The music companies developed a new strategy: targeting the people who download music. On September 8, 2003, the RIAA filed the first 261 lawsuits against alleged illegal downloaders, commonly referred to as “pirates”(Kravets 2010). Over the next several months, thousands of lawsuits were filed. An RIAA executive said: "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action….We simply cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers and everyone in the music industry." (Boliek 2003, 54-55).

The RIAA’s procedure took two steps. First, they employed a careful interpretation of the DMCA §512(a-c,h). This section allowed the RIAA to serve a subpoena on an ISP that is classified as an intermediary in music downloading activity. The ISP identifies the individual users associated with the music, allowing the music companies to seek damages from the individual (Zilkha 2010, 668-713).

While most ISPs complied with the RIAA subpoenas, Verizon chose to challenge it. The issue went to court in Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services. The judge in this case decided that the particular clause of the DMCA (§512h) applied only to ISPs that stored information on their servers, not those that served as intermediaries (Zilkha 2010, 668-713).

Following this suit, the RIAA developed its “John Doe” approach. Using “John Doe” to refer to a person whose name is not known, the RIAA would serve subpoenas to persons whose IP addresses were associated with downloading music illegally. Often a “John Doe” subpoena would identify dozens of IP addresses at a time (Zilkha 2010, 668-713). Once a person received a subpoena from the RIAA, they would typically have a short time to settle the claim out of court. If they did not settle, a lawsuit would be filed against them. Most persons so targeted would settle, usually by paying $2,000 - $5,000 (France 2003, 94-96).

The RIAA lawsuits were a public relations disaster. The people targeted seemed to be randomly chosen; they included a 12-year-old girl who lived in public housing, (McBride and Smith 2008, B1-B7) a senior citizen who only used email (BBC News 2003), a deceased person(McBride and Smith 2008, B1-B7), and a Des Moines, IA school board member (private interview). The vast majority of those receiving a subpoena settled out of court. In most cases it was one individual with no legal experience facing a large conglomeration with hundreds of lawyers. They sincerely felt they stood no chance. A few individuals have challenged the RIAA, but have not been successful.